Tuesday 23 June 2015

Is NIC really “beneficial” to St Lucians? Weighing the evidence.

I decided recently to research some of the pertinent legislation of St Lucia, as part of my “coming to know” exercise. I wanted to write about laws that affect the daily lives of the St Lucian Public. In this article I will be reviewing some sections of the National Insurance Corporation Act. It is amazing the things you learn when you do a little bit of reading. Some of you may already be familiar with this information, however for the benefit of us who may still be ignorant of a few things I will share my opinion on section 56- Survivors pension and Grant of The NIC Act.
Section 56 (1) A person who has been widowed is entitled to a survivor’s pension at the prescribed rate if—
 (a) the late spouse satisfied the prescribed contribution conditions for a survivor’s pension; or was at the time of his or her death, in receipt of a pension under this Act;
(b) he or she was married to his or her late spouse for at least 3 years prior to his of her death;
(c) he or she was, at the time of the spouse’s death over the age of 55; or
(d) he or she was under the age of 55 and had the care of his or her children (with his or her late spouse) under the age of 16 or 18 if the children are in receipt of a full-time education.
So the important things that married couples of individuals who are contributors must take note of is that if you are married less than 3 years to a contributor you will not be entitled to survivors benefit. If you are not above 55 at the time of his/her death you are not entitled to receive any benefits. Now how unfair is that!!! Shouldn’t you receive such benefits any time your spouse dies? Let’s dissect this a little more. NIC is sitting on a massive fortune. If you were to investigate the net worth of the NIC and the profits it generates you would be surprised. According to the 2009 annual report (wish they provided a more updated report on their website) the total assets owned is in the tune of $1.35 BILLION dollars. They also have holdings in subsidiary companies namely; NIPRO, Castries Car Park, Blue Coral, St Lucia Mortgage Finance Company. In 2009 The NIC received over $87 million in annual income/contributions of which only a little over 46 million was paid out in short and Long term benefits. According to their annual report of 2009, NIC was profiting over 25 million dollars. After adding their "other income" to the mix they were operating at a profit of 94 million dollars. How much of that money is the hard working St Lucian Public getting in return?
The Castries Car Park is 100% owned by NIC. In 2009, they recorded an average occupancy of 55%. In other words on average only a little over half of the car park was full on any given day. Now I’m sure the NIC would have love a greater rate of occupancy, but it begs the question. Why aren’t more people using the carpark? If I was a conspiracy theorist I would make this absurd proposition for consideration. Are you aware that in “public opinion” Conway was considered one of the most dangerous communities at one point? Are you also aware, that NIC purchased millions of dollars in government bonds? And that NIC’s partnership is highly beneficial to both the GOSL and NIC? Back to my conspiracy theory. If Conway was considered dangerous by the public, and the public consequently were not utilizing the facility. Could it have been NIC who lobbied for the government to displace the Conway residents? Hmmmmmm???? Again I’m not a conspiracy theorist so I won’t make that “silly” assumption. Is this really beneficial to you? I guess you’ll decide. There are more observations I made while analyzing the benefit of NIC, but I don’t want to make the article exorbitantly lengthy, so look out for the next article which I will be posting in a few days.
Here’s to happy reading!!!! 

Wednesday 7 January 2015

Building Blocks of The Criminally Liable

If one is accused of committing a crime, it is important that he/she understands and accept the reality. Being accused of a crime is no sweet situation. But a basic knowledge the elements necessary to charge you with an offence might assist you in dealing with your already aggrieved situation.

I will be exploring in my post what elements make up the building blocks of a criminal Liability. In other words what elements must be proven in order that i may be considered to have committed a crime. In my studies over the years I have come across a very simple equation to help me understand this sometimes complex issue. This equation is as follows.Prohibited conduct+Mental Element= Criminal Liability.

Lets go deeper. If one is accused of doing something "wrong" or criminal we first need to ascertain what is the "rule" that he is accused of breaking, and where is this rule found. What gives this rule its authority etc. This can be applied in many institutions. In religious institutions, the rules that believers are accused of breaking are often found in the "holy books". These holy books are often considered words of the "deity"of the subjects and as a result gives the rules powerful authority.

In states and countries doing something criminal is somewhat different. Breaking a religious vow is not considered criminal in the traditional sense, unless the state is under what is called a theocracy (governed by a deity/God)-like ancient Israel. In order for an act or "omission" to be considered prohibited, is must be found in Laws drawn by the legislative branches of governments or its subsidiaries. In monarchical societies however, the word of the monarch is often times considered law. Going contrary to the word of the monarch might result in you being accused of committing a prohibited act. In St Lucia you can find Laws in a codified constitution or in a body of laws called " The Laws of St Lucia and other secondary sources.

 When accused of a crime one needs to ascertain " What is the rule that I have broken or I am accused of breaking".

The second element that must be present is called the mental element. In Law there is a term used to describe this element. "Mens Rea" is a Latin Phrase meaning "Guilty Mind". So not only must one commit the prohibited act or omission, but they must have done it with the intention to carry out the prohibition.  If per-adventure a store manager stops you at the door on your way out of his store and decides to search your pocket. In it he finds a very pricey merchandise and decides to accuse you of theft. Immediately you need to ascertain the rule that you are breaking. In the UK s.1(1) Theft Act 1968 states : "a person is guilty of theft if they dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it".  That is the rule he would be accused of breaking. The "act element" (Actus Reus/Prohibited act) in the rule is "Dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another".
This shop keeper would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you took the merchandise dishonestly. Secondly He would need to prove that you took it  with the intention to permanently deprive the him of it".

So if you did place it in your pocket but took it with the intention to show it to a friend standing at the door and your intention was to return the item to the shelf, he cannot convict you if your intention is proven to be true. However by the time he accuses you, he would have locked his doors so you don't leave. Called the police! When the Police arrives you are found with the merchandise in your pocket. The police decides to arrest you and tell you we are taking you to jail. The process spirals very quickly out of control and complicated from there. So your best bet is to stay out of trouble. If you ever do, don't panic.

Call a Lawyer.

This article is only for the purpose of sharing and should not be used as advice in criminal proceedings.